Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:15:48 07/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2002 at 08:23:52, Sven Reichard wrote:
>On July 03, 2002 at 18:24:04, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>
>>On July 03, 2002 at 13:52:36, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>On July 02, 2002 at 17:01:05, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 02, 2002 at 16:16:49, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>
>>>I still do not know if by compiling Tiger with GCC, which is GPL, I am forced to
>>>release the source code together with the binaries.
>>>
>>>I have read the GPL carefully, and this point is unclear.
>>
>>As far as I understand, the GNU C-library is released under the
>>GNU Lesser General Public License, which is not the same thing.
>>Read more at www.gnu.org.
>
>You certainly have no problems at all publishing a compiled version which is
>dynamically linked to glibc. If glibc is LGPL (which I also think it is) you
>could even link it statically and sell it - not that you get any ideas here :)
>GPL certainly doesn't cover the result of the compilation.
>
>Sven.
I guess the compiled code does not carry the GPL or LPGL licence of the compiler
used to generate it, but the startup code linked with the executable might.
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.